Abstract
Algebra has been called the gatekeeper to higher level mathematics, college success, and higher wages, but many community college students struggle to pass college-level mathematics courses. The National Educational Technology Plan for higher education (U.S. Department of Education 2017b) calls for the integration of technology, such as real-time formative assessments, to support student learning. Community college faculty, however, struggle to implement technology to support student learning. The purpose of this ethnographic study is to describe barriers to technology implementation from the perspectives of mathematics community college instructors. A rural community college in the southeastern United States had a goal of increasing student success rates in developmental and college algebra courses by engaging in professional development to incorporate classroom connectivity technology, the Texas Instruments Navigator system coupled with the Nspire calculator, within their algebra sequence. Over the course of 3 years, mathematics faculty participated in 27 professional development days, provided input for lesson creation and revision, and had ongoing classroom support. Faculty interviews were conducted postintervention and analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006). Barriers to the implementation of classroom connectivity technology at the instructor level included faculty beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning and about students’ abilities. Other findings included lack of time for planning, inadequate technical support, lack of agency related to the college’s quality enhancement plan, and the perception of misalignment between the activities and the state-mandated curriculum. Implications for supporting technology implementation in higher education will be discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Adapted from “Classroom connectivity in Algebra I: Results of a randomized control trial,” by S. J. Pape, K. E. Irving, D. T. Owens, C. K. Boscardin, V. A. Sanalan, A. L. Abrahamson, S. Kaya, H. S. Shin, and D. Silver, 2013, Effective Education, 2, p. 2. Copyright 2013 by Taylor and Francis
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 886–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778948.
Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S.-W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.002.
Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39, 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1343420.
Butler, D. L., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology. Educause Quarterly, 2, 22–28. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Chen, X. (2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes (NCES 2016-405). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf.
Chuang, Y.-T. (2014). SSCLS: A smartphone-supported collaborative learning system. Telematics and Infomatics, 32, 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.10.004.
Daher, T., & Lazarevic, B. (2014). Emerging instructional technologies: Exploring the extent of faculty use of web 2.0 tools at a Midwestern community college. TechTrends, 58, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0802-1.
Edwards, A. R., Sandoval, C., & McNamara, H. (2015). Designing for improvement in professional development for community college developmental mathematics faculty. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115602313.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
Fike, D. S., & Fike, R. (2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community college. Community College Review, 36, 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552108320222.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Fortner-Wood, C., Armistead, L., Marchand, A., & Morris, F. B. (2013). The effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes in undergraduate psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312465860.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20, 102–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217532.
Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16, 21–46. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/aacej.
Hassanin, H., Essa, K., El-Sayed, M. A., & Attallah, M. M. (2016). Enhancement of student learning and feedback of large group engineering lectures using audience response systems. Journal of Materials Education, 38, 175–190. Retrieved from http://www.icme.unt.edu/journal.html.
Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2009). Intersecting representation and communication infrastructures. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0191-7.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards.
Irving, K. E., Pape, S. J., Owens, D. T., Abrahamson, L., Silver, D., & Sanalan, V. (2016). Classroom connectivity and Algebra 1 achievement: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 35, 131–151.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon report: 2015 higher (education ed.). Austin: The New Media Consortium.
Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59, 1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014.
Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009). (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38, 687–699. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09351980.
Lee, H., Feldman, A., & Beatty, I. D. (2012). Factors that affect science and mathematics teachers’ initial implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment using a classroom response system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9344-x.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51, 1523–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003.
Oigara, J., & Keengwe, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning. Educational Information Technologies, 18, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9173-9.
Pape, S. J., Irving, K. E., Owens, D. T., Boscardin, C. K., Sanalan, V., Abrahamson, A. L., et al. (2013). Classroom connectivity in Algebra I: Results of a randomized control trial. Effective Education, 4, 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415532.2013.841059.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9177-6.
Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0190.
Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., Tatar, D., Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2003). Five key considerations for networking in a handheld-based mathematics classroom. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 joint meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 4, pp. 71–78). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Shirley, M. L., & Irving, K. E. (2015). Connected classroom technology facilitates multiple components of formative assessment practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9520-x.
Thomas, M. O. J., & Hong, Y. Y. (2013). Teacher integration of technology into mathematics learning. International Journal of Technology in Mathematics Education, 20, 69–84.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education (National Education Technology Plan 2016). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017a). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Technology Plan update. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017b). Reimagining the role of technology in higher education: A supplement to the National Education Technology Plan. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov.
Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782415.
Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9230-y.
Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 5, 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636310500186214.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040004807.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovation. Teachers College Record, 104, 482–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00170.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pape, S.J., Prosser, S.K. Barriers to technology implementation in community college mathematics classrooms. J Comput High Educ 30, 620–636 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9195-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9195-z